The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural fairness and statutory safeguards in quasi-judicial proceedings involving trustee matters under the applicable act.

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P2 order issued by the Commissioner-in-charge of the Malabar Devaswom Board constituting a special team to conduct a detailed enquiry into the affairs of the entire Zamorin Devaswom as regards the matters relating to Special Grade, 'A' Grade and 'B' Grade Temples.

2. The petitioner herein is the Zamorin Raja of Calicut. According to him, he is the hereditary trustee of the 3 Kovilakoms. There are about 43 temples and sub temples under his trusteeship. The petitioner is also the educational agency which runs the Zamorin's Guruvayurappan College and Zamorin's Higher Secondary Schools. According to the petitioner, the religious and educational institutions are administered in accordance with law and the Board has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal administration. It is contended that the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, ('MHRCE Act' for the sake of brevity) governs the administration. Neither the temple nor the educational institution is financed by the Government.

3. It is contended that on 01.10.2016, he was served with a notice issued by the 2nd respondent purportedly under Section 45 (c) and (d) of the MHRCE Act calling upon the petitioner to appear before the said authority on 26.10.2016 to respond to a complaint received by the said authority. According to the petitioner, he was also served with Ext.P2 order passed in I.A.No.11/2016 issued by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that even a casual perusal of the order would reveal that the said order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner asserts that the 2nd respondent has violated the provisions of Section 45 of the MHRCE Act while issuing the order. It is further contended that Ext.P2 order has been passed by an authority who is not competent to issue the same. It is urged that in terms of Section 8C of the MHRCE Act, the Commissioner shall be an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government and who is professing Hindu religion and a believer of god and temple worship. The 2nd respondent, at the time of his appointment as Commissioner, was not in the rank of Joint Secretary but was in the service of the erstwhile HR & CE Department. The 2nd respondent was put in charge during the interregnum to manage the routine affairs of the Board and was not competent to pass Ext.P2 order. It is further contended that the passing of the order by the 2nd respondent is a mala fide exercise. It is on these assertions that the instant Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing Ext.P2 order as the same is without jurisdiction, vitiated by mala fides, against the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, illegal and arbitrary.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that the right of the Trustee to manage the affairs of the temple in the matter of religion though absolute, the Trustees are bound to administer the temple in accordance with the regulations. While exercising supervisory control, the authorities under the MHRCE Act are to ensure that there is no mismanagement by the Trustee. The appointments made by the Trustee without obtaining sanction as provided in Rule 10 under Section 100(2)(y) is illegal and it is for the said reason that the Commissioner had ventured to act to ensure that the Trustee exercises his power in terms of Sections 27 and 28 of the MHRCE Act. It is stated that it was while working as Deputy Commissioner that th